Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

  1. #21

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    I disagree.

    1) The Tang Dynasty was very large and expansive in scope and they have nothing to do with the 3 Kingdoms period. The Tang Dynasty fought everybody from Japan & Korea in the East to the Abbasaid Caliphate in the West so you're talking about a battlefield bigger than 3K and probably equal in size to Rome 2's battlefield map.

    Making the Tang Dynasty (which has a bigger scope than the 3K period) into a mere expansion to a 3K TW main game would make little sense because expansions are supposed to be narrower in scope and more focused than the main game - not the other way arund.

    2) They have 3 separate titles focusing on the [Western] Romans. Crisis of the Third Century is literally just 1 century and falls between the timeline of Rome 2's main campaign and Attila TW. Rome 1 and 2 covers roughly 200 BC- 200 AD. Crisis of 3C DLC is 200 AD-300AD. Attila TW is 400+ AD up to 800s AD with Attila's AoC.

    Making the Crisis of the 3rd century into a DLC is perfectly fine because it covers 1 century and is basically sandwhiched between 3 Roman-centric games that already covers antiquity in that part of the world.

    In fact, it's more surprising that 3K is a full game instead of being a SAGA/expansion game to a main game about the Han Dynasty. That's like Crisis of the 3rd century being the main game and Rome 2 being the expansion.

    And it's also surprising that Attila TW was made into a full title at all considering the limited timeframe/scope (I don't consider this a SAGA game considering it was full price with a large scope/lots of content equal to Rome 2). So if they could do it for Attila about the fall of Western Rome which had a narrower scope, I see no reason why they can't do it for a bigger timeperiod/scope such as the Tang Dynasty.
    The problem with the Tang is that they don't really have the same "Rise" that Rome did. They just kinda took over from the Sui, who had already had most of Han Chinese lands under their control (an area the size of western Europe). The also didn't have the same cataclysmic "Fall" that western Rome did, with mass migrations, invasions, and wars with rival powers. They just fractured from internal instability.

    The Tang fought a bunch of people, but these were all wars on the periphery, not ever something that required the empire to go on a war footing. These were all military expeditions a la The Last Roman.

    The one big exception would be the An Lushang rebellion. I could definitely see that as being a great campaign. It involved basically every nation in the region, and was the closest the Tang dynasty came to destruction before the actual end of the dynasty.


    As for the Three Kingdoms, its fine as a full game. We already have the Shogun games to show that you don't have to have a long time period or massive map scale to make a tentpole Total War. The problem with trying to make the whole Han Dynasty into a game is that nobody else in the region was even close to it in power. Any game as the Han when they were united would be a massive unbalanced campaign, without the Attila era's excuse to debuff the Romans. The Three Kingdoms works because the scope is still epic but the fracturing of power means that factions can start on a more even footing, and basically everywhere is fighting, not just the periphery of the empire.
    Last edited by zoner16; March 06, 2018 at 05:52 PM.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    The problem with the Tang is that they don't really have the same "Rise" that Rome did. They just kinda took over from the Sui, who had already had most of Han Chinese lands under their control (an area the size of western Europe)..
    You don't necessarily need a rise, as Attila TW didn't have much of a rise either. The 3K is as much or more about the fall of the Han Dynasty and its splinter into warring factions as it is about the rise of the short-lived individual kingdoms. You can have a main game about the fall of an existing empire rather than building up an empire.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    The also didn't have the same cataclysmic "Fall" that western Rome did, with mass migrations, invasions, and wars with rival powers. They just fractured from internal instability. The Tang fought a bunch of people, but these were all wars on the periphery, not ever something that required the empire to go on a war footing. These were all military expeditions a la The Last Roman. The one big exception would be the An Lushang rebellion. I could definitely see that as being a great campaign. It involved basically every nation in the region, and was the closest the Tang dynasty came to destruction before the actual end of the dynasty.
    The Tang's external wars also contributed to internal instability. If you count the successor Tang Kingdoms such as the Later Tang in the 5 Dynasties/10 Kingdoms period as a legitimate restoration of the Tang Dynasty, then you have an even longer period of widespread and catacylsmic wars taking place during the "Tang era."

    If you combine the An Lushan rebellion with the other wars the Tang fought (during other timeperiods), such as the Tang-Silla-Yamato War against Japan & Korean Kingdoms, battles against the Goturks, wars against nomadic tribes, wars against Uighurs, wars against the Khitans, battles against the Tibetan Empire, battles against the Abbasaid Caliphate in Central Asia, campaigns into SE Asia, etc, you can easily have enough for a main game.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    As for the Three Kingdoms, its fine as a full game. We already have the Shogun games to show that you don't have to have a long time period or massive map scale to make a tentpole Total War. The problem with trying to make the whole Han Dynasty into a game is that nobody else in the region was even close to it in power. Any game as the Han when they were united would be a massive unbalanced campaign, without the Attila era's excuse to debuff the Romans. The Three Kingdoms works because the scope is still epic but the fracturing of power means that factions can start on a more even footing, and basically everywhere is fighting, not just the periphery of the empire.
    That is not true if you set the game during the fall of the Qin Dynasty. The Chu-Han contention/War of 18 Kingdoms is basically similar to the Three Kingdoms or inital rise of Rome where the Han kingdom defeated its rivals after the defeat of the Qin Dynasty to establish the Han Dynasty. The Qin and Chu kingdoms could be the "rivals" of the Han kingdom that are similar in power in the early game.

    In the mid game, the massive Xiongnu Confederation was the Han Dynasty's rival in military as well. The Xiongnu were historically more powerful than the Han Dynasty for many decades or a few centuries until the Han obtained Persian horses after expeditions into the Western Regions and instituted military reforms. The Han campaigns into Korea, SE Asia, Southern China/Vietnam, Western Regions & Central Asia, etc could all serve as decent sized supplemental campaigns. The remaining Yue Kingdoms of Minyue, Nanyue, etc of Southern China/Northern Vietnam were fairly powerful and sophisticated as they resisted Han conquest for many decades.

    Then, you can have an Empire Divided campaign in the form of the Three Kingdoms in the late/end game. There would be way more content and scenarios for the Han Dynasty as a whole.
    Last edited by Intranetusa; March 07, 2018 at 03:52 PM.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    1) The Tang Dynasty was very large and expansive in scope and they have nothing to do with the 3 Kingdoms period. The Tang Dynasty fought everybody from Japan & Korea in the East to the Abbasaid Caliphate in the West so you're talking about a battlefield bigger than 3K and probably equal in size to Rome 2's battlefield map.
    Irrelevant. Period is not popular enough or different enough to justify making a full scale game. Yeah they had some run in with some other factions but were they all at a close amount of years to justify putting them all in one campaign? Again it does not matter how many years had passed CA has proven to not care with how Wrath of Sparta and Empire Divided all took place far away from Rome's time frame and the former had nothing to do with Rome. Most likely it will be more about certain wars the Tang fought but not a whole campaign spanning centuries on a single campaign map.
    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    2) They have 3 separate titles focusing on the [Western] Romans. Crisis of the Third Century is literally just 1 century and falls between the timeline of Rome 2's main campaign and Attila TW. Rome 1 and 2 covers roughly 200 BC- 200 AD. Crisis of 3C DLC is 200 AD-300AD. Attila TW is 400+ AD up to 800s AD with Attila's AoC.
    Attila is way further then Rome 2's original date by about 300 years and Rome 2 ended more around the first century not the 2nd. All that proves more that CA would more logically go with a expansion instead of a full scale campaign.
    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    Making the Crisis of the 3rd century into a DLC is perfectly fine because it covers 1 century and is basically sandwhiched between 3 Roman-centric games that already covers antiquity in that part of the world.
    Wrong. There are way more factions then just the 3 Roman ones and the conflict was way bigger since it covered most of Europe and parts of the middle east so it had about as much reason to be main campaign as you think the Tang should, but it wasn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    In fact, it's more surprising that 3K is a full game instead of being a SAGA/expansion game to a main game about the Han Dynasty. That's like Crisis of the 3rd century being the main game and Rome 2 being the expansion.
    Because it's more popular then the Tang. Personally would prefer other time periods in China but that is just the way it goes. Which is why I can't see the Tang be given a full standalone game like this due to them not being as popular even if I would find them more interesting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    And it's also surprising that Attila TW was made into a full title at all considering the limited timeframe/scope (I don't consider this a SAGA game considering it was full price with a large scope/lots of content equal to Rome 2). So if they could do it for Attila about the fall of Western Rome which had a narrower scope, I see no reason why they can't do it for a bigger timeperiod/scope such as the Tang Dynasty.
    Because most likely if they did something like an Attila expansion for China, it's not going to be the Tang, but the Mongols since they are more popular and have a bigger scale.
    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    The Mongol invasion can't even fit into a single "full TW game," let alone an expansion. A Mongol TW game will have a scope larger than any of the previous historical TW games. You can certainly break it down to focus on different areas, but they'd still need to be main games like the Warhammer trilogy rather than simply expansions because each segment would have the scope and scale as a full TW game by themselves.
    That's why if they did it as an expansion I was thinking of it being the invasion of Northern China by Genghis Khan omitting the parts where he went west into Persia and beyond to save it for a later game.

    Yeah they could possibly do it like you said and divide them into parts but I don't think they would go and make a full scale TW centered around the Tang simply due to how much more popular the other eras are like the Mongols. I really do not see why they can't do a tang campaign in a similar vain as Fall of the Samurai which was actually bigger then Shogun 2 and had more features that made it feel like a full game instead of just an expansion.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by NostalgiaFan View Post
    Irrelevant. Period is not popular enough or different enough to justify making a full scale game. Yeah they had some run in with some other factions but were they all at a close amount of years to justify putting them all in one campaign? Again it does not matter how many years had passed CA has proven to not care with how Wrath of Sparta and Empire Divided all took place far away from Rome's time frame and the former had nothing to do with Rome. Most likely it will be more about certain wars the Tang fought but not a whole campaign spanning centuries on a single campaign map..
    Incorrect. Popularity isn't such a big defining factor as you think. If popularity was such a big factor in deciding periods and locations, then Attila TW would never have been made. The first game wouldn't have been Shogun, but rather Rome or Medieval. Napoleon is a pretty niche timeframe that wouldn't have been made. We would have nothing but 3-4 sequels of Rome TW, Medieval TW, and Empire TW by now.

    Wrath of Sparta is only 200 years before Rome 2's beginning date. Empire Divided is about 1-2 centuries after Rome 2 ends. None of those are huge leaps in timeframe.

    And if the Tang Dynasty isn't popular, then they won't bother making the Tang Dynasty in the first place. I don't see why they would suddenly make a random expansion to 3K about a single war about an unrelated medieval dynasty centuries into the future. Most likely the 3K expansions won't have anything to do with the middle ages Tang Dynasty because there are far more relevant events that are closer to the antiquity timeframe of the 3 Kingdoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by NostalgiaFan View Post
    Attila is way further then Rome 2's original date by about 300 years and Rome 2 ended more around the first century not the 2nd. All that proves more that CA would more logically go with a expansion instead of a full scale campaign. ..
    1) If being further than the original date means something then that supports my point. The Tang Dynasty is at least the same if not a larger time difference from the 3 Kingdoms period as Attila TW is from RTW2. The 3K ended in the late 3rd century AD while the Tang Dynasty started in the 7th century AD. That is ~400 years difference vs ~300 years difference between RTW2 and Attila.

    2) Rome 2's ends in the 1st century date of 28 AD only in the gameplay stats & scripted events, but it's Rome 2 really ends around the 2nd century in real world historical terms. Rome's victory conditions includes holding Armenia - and Armenia wasn't a Roman province until Trajan's time in the 2nd century. The wider use of lorica segmentata also doesn't happen until well after 28 AD and well into Trajan's time.

    Quote Originally Posted by NostalgiaFan View Post
    Wrong. There are way more factions then just the 3 Roman ones and the conflict was way bigger since it covered most of Europe and parts of the middle east so it had about as much reason to be main campaign as you think the Tang should, but it wasn't...
    Re-read what I said. I said the DLC is sandwhiched between "3 Roman-centric games." I never claimed there was only 3 factions - I didn't even say anything about the factions.

    Crisis3C is similar to the 3 Kingdoms in scope, except without as many popular named heroes/characters. Both are pretty short timeframes (1 century). The 3 Kindoms should have been a SAGA game or an expansion to a "Han Dynasty" game that would be more comparable to RTW. With that standard, then the C3C events fits the DLC or expansion route pretty well.

    However, the main reason C3C is a DLC is likely because it's sandwhiched between 3 existing Rome-centric games already: RTW1, RTW2, and Attila TW. CA doesn't want to make and I'm sure a lot of TW fans don't want to play a full TW game that is basically the 4th Roman-Empire centric game but is focused solely on the 3rd century.

    Quote Originally Posted by NostalgiaFan View Post
    Because it's more popular then the Tang. Personally would prefer other time periods in China but that is just the way it goes. Which is why I can't see the Tang be given a full standalone game like this due to them not being as popular even if I would find them more interesting.
    Again, if popularity is so important and the Tang isn't popular, then they won't make it in the first place. In any event, I don't see why the Tang would be an expansion to the 3K. The two timeperiods is separated by a good chunk of time and there is very little relation between the two. You're also skipping important timeperiods that are closer in time and could be far better DLCs/expansions to 3K TW.
    The Tang Dynasty should either get a full game or CA should not bother making it.

    Quote Originally Posted by NostalgiaFan View Post
    Because most likely if they did something like an Attila expansion for China, it's not going to be the Tang, but the Mongols since they are more popular and have a bigger scale..
    They're not going to make an Attila "expansion" for the Mongols. That would be crazy because the Mongol invasions won't even fit into a single FULL scale TW game. The Mongols had an empire 4-5x the size of the Roman Empire, so we're dealing with a campaign map at least several times the size of RTW2.

    At the very least, the Mongols deserve their own full game. Realistically speaking, they'll probably get at least 2 games and have the campaign map combine like Mortal Empires if we ever get Mongol TW.

    Quote Originally Posted by NostalgiaFan View Post
    That's why if they did it as an expansion I was thinking of it being the invasion of Northern China by Genghis Khan omitting the parts where he went west into Persia and beyond to save it for a later game. Yeah they could possibly do it like you said and divide them into parts but I don't think they would go and make a full scale TW centered around the Tang simply due to how much more popular the other eras are like the Mongols. I really do not see why they can't do a tang campaign in a similar vain as Fall of the Samurai which was actually bigger then Shogun 2 and had more features that made it feel like a full game instead of just an expansion.
    That wouldn't be anything close to an expansion. That would just be the "first" full game about the Mongols. It might start in East Asia and SE Asia and parts of central Asia for game 1. Then they'll add another full game 2 about the Mongols in Middle East and Western Asia and South Asia and maybe Rus and parts of NE Africa. Maybe they'll have a 3rd game or an expansion that extends the map into Europe and rest of North Africa.

    My main point is I really don't see why the Tang Dynasty would be an expansion to 3K. The Tang Dynasty is a bigger scope than the 3K, and you're not going to have an expansion that has a bigger scope than the main game.
    Sure, there are other popular eras such as the Mongols - which is why they won't do a Tang Dynasty game at all anytime soon. They would do the more popular stuff first. But if they ever decide to do a Tang era game (after they did Mongols, RTW3, MTW3, etc) then it'll probably be a full TW game because the scope and battlemap of a Tang TW game would be huge - as opposed to making it an expansion to a smaller-in-scope game such as 3K.
    Last edited by Intranetusa; March 09, 2018 at 01:50 AM.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by Intranetusa View Post
    You don't necessarily need a rise, as Attila TW didn't have much of a rise either. The 3K is as much or more about the fall of the Han Dynasty and its splinter into warring factions as it is about the rise of the short-lived individual kingdoms. You can have a main game about the fall of an existing empire rather than building up an empire.
    I was making a comparison to the way Rome and Rome II are structured, since you mentioned the Roman centric games. You starting small and getting big, going from absorbing other minor factions, to fighting regional wars, to dueling with other superpowers.

    The Tang's external wars also contributed to internal instability. If you count the successor Tang Kingdoms such as the Later Tang in the 5 Dynasties/10 Kingdoms period as a legitimate restoration of the Tang Dynasty, then you have an even longer period of widespread and catacylsmic wars taking place during the "Tang era."

    If you combine the An Lushan rebellion with the other wars the Tang fought (during other timeperiods), such as the Tang-Silla-Yamato War against Japan & Korean Kingdoms, battles against the Goturks, wars against nomadic tribes, wars against Uighurs, wars against the Khitans, battles against the Tibetan Empire, battles against the Abbasaid Caliphate in Central Asia, campaigns into SE Asia, etc, you can easily have enough for a main game.
    The Tang's extenal wars didn't have much to do with the internal instability, though they may have had some indirect contributions. A slow breakdown of central authority over the span of many years, as well as several natural disasters, were the primary causes.

    The two main reasons I don't like trying to focus on the entirety of the Tang for a mainline title (outside the An Lushan rebellion) is because the wars the Tang fought outside of that were never "total wars," and zooming out to that scale means that the wars have to share space and fight for focus, leading to the characteristics that made each war unique and interesting being lost in the shuffle. Each war was mostly just a military expedition outside the empire, with generals setting up vassal states or assisting allies to stabilize trading interests. They don't really fit the Total War theme, where your are fighting to shape the fate of your nation on the world stage.

    A Five Dynasties Ten Kingdoms game would be more along that line, but not really the Tang.

    That is not true if you set the game during the fall of the Qin Dynasty. The Chu-Han contention/War of 18 Kingdoms is basically similar to the Three Kingdoms or inital rise of Rome where the Han kingdom defeated its rivals after the defeat of the Qin Dynasty to establish the Han Dynasty. The Qin and Chu kingdoms could be the "rivals" of the Han kingdom that are similar in power in the early game.

    In the mid game, the massive Xiongnu Confederation was the Han Dynasty's rival in military as well. The Xiongnu were historically more powerful than the Han Dynasty for many decades or a few centuries until the Han obtained Persian horses after expeditions into the Western Regions and instituted military reforms. The Han campaigns into Korea, SE Asia, Southern China/Vietnam, Western Regions & Central Asia, etc could all serve as decent sized supplemental campaigns. The remaining Yue Kingdoms of Minyue, Nanyue, etc of Southern China/Northern Vietnam were fairly powerful and sophisticated as they resisted Han conquest for many decades.

    Then, you can have an Empire Divided campaign in the form of the Three Kingdoms in the late/end game. There would be way more content and scenarios for the Han Dynasty as a whole.
    If you set it during the Qin Rebellion/Eighteen Kingdoms/Chu-Han Contention era, it's doable. The era is pretty fragmented, as even the Xiongnu haven't been unified yet, and everyone is at a state of total war. Historically, there's a very good reason why that era ended so quickly, but it could probably be stretched out if the game makes the other vassal states less pushovers. With the four turns per year system, it could even have a decent timeframe.

    The main reason I suspect it wasn't chosen is that it isn't as well known and our sources on a lot of things not happening in the boundaries of the empire are spotty. The Three Kingdoms shares most of its virtues, as well as having better historical and fictional sources, more interesting military technology and strategy, a more colorful cast of characters, a longer timeframe, and most of all, better publicity. Essentially, there's very little you can do with a Chu-Han Contention game that you can't do with a Three Kingdoms game, and there's plenty that you can do with a Three Kingdoms game that you can't with a Chu-Han Contention game. If you want to break into the Chinese historical game market, Three Kingdoms is the way to go.

    Though, either the Eighteen Kingdoms or the Warring States is at the top of my list for likely DLC/Saga.

  6. #26
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,317

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    I just noted they are going to release this game. Funny. Is a map with the playable factions already known? Are there only Chinese factions or will it include Vietnam or similar?

  7. #27

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by geala View Post
    I just noted they are going to release this game. Funny. Is a map with the playable factions already known? Are there only Chinese factions or will it include Vietnam or similar?
    The map is unknown. Vietnam (Nanyue) is a territory of the Han Empire (Jiaozhi province), so they're probably going to be in the game. Other nearby peoples like the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Wuhan, and Qiang are probably going to be in the game as well, since they played a fairly important part in this period of history as auxiliaries, mercenaries, and sometimes even foreign invaders. The Korean kingdom of Goguryeo might also be included, as they had some notable interactions in the northern empire.

  8. #28
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,317

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Thank you. I like Southeast Asia but are not interested in China at all, a bit strange, as I deal a lot with military history otherwise. The game smells a bit like a gigantic Shogun2 which means I will certainly skip it as I really despise single-culture based TW scenarios. Sad.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by geala View Post
    Thank you. I like Southeast Asia but are not interested in China at all, a bit strange, as I deal a lot with military history otherwise. The game smells a bit like a gigantic Shogun2 which means I will certainly skip it as I really despise single-culture based TW scenarios. Sad.
    My previous post listed out a bunch of other cultures that are going to likely be appearing. Even if it didn't, the Han empire is nowhere near a single culture. This is an empire that occupies the same amount of territory as the Romans. They've were more successful at incorporating their subjects culturally, thanks to better centralization that they inherited from the Qin, but the empire was still a mishmash of subcultures, tribes, and even non-Chinese ethnic groups that was spread out over a massive amount of land.

    It's not going to be as diverse as say Rome 2, but it's nowhere near Shogun 2's level of homogeny.

  10. #30
    JackDionne's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,460

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    My previous post listed out a bunch of other cultures that are going to likely be appearing. Even if it didn't, the Han empire is nowhere near a single culture. This is an empire that occupies the same amount of territory as the Romans. They've were more successful at incorporating their subjects culturally, thanks to better centralization that they inherited from the Qin, but the empire was still a mishmash of subcultures, tribes, and even non-Chinese ethnic groups that was spread out over a massive amount of land.

    It's not going to be as diverse as say Rome 2, but it's nowhere near Shogun 2's level of homogeny.
    Great post on this thread!

    I have seen a lot of post on different forums about 3K based on cultural ignorance, racism or both. It'sgetting old.
    3K needs to have an Avatar Campaign!!!

  11. #31
    Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tulifurdum
    Posts
    1,317

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by zoner16 View Post
    My previous post listed out a bunch of other cultures that are going to likely be appearing. Even if it didn't, the Han empire is nowhere near a single culture. This is an empire that occupies the same amount of territory as the Romans. They've were more successful at incorporating their subjects culturally, thanks to better centralization that they inherited from the Qin, but the empire was still a mishmash of subcultures, tribes, and even non-Chinese ethnic groups that was spread out over a massive amount of land.

    It's not going to be as diverse as say Rome 2, but it's nowhere near Shogun 2's level of homogeny.
    Thanks for the info. I will see how the units look and feel.


    @ JackDionne: I have a certain feeling about people who use the racism argument in almost any connection and situation. It's quite a dangerous way to think and argue.



    Edit: As there seem to be some people with a lot of knowledge of the time around, do you have links or pictures about how units of "border" regions/other cultures might look?

    Here is a nice thread with some pictures and discussions about Chinese troops https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...period.604561/, do you have similar for mercenaries or such, for example from Jiaozhou/ Giao Chau natives? (And why it is also written Jiaozhi?)
    Last edited by geala; March 27, 2018 at 11:28 AM.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    The "zhōu" part is the character 州, which basically means "province" and "zhǐ" 址is basically used to denote a location (like -land or -stan in this context, I guess), so one is just the place name and the other is its administrative. "Giaochau" is just an older romanization of Jiaozhou. I'm not a native speaker or anything though.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Three Kingdoms Unit Variety and DLCs

    Quote Originally Posted by geala View Post

    Edit: As there seem to be some people with a lot of knowledge of the time around, do you have links or pictures about how units of "border" regions/other cultures might look?

    Here is a nice thread with some pictures and discussions about Chinese troops https://forums.spacebattles.com/thre...period.604561/, do you have similar for mercenaries or such, for example from Jiaozhou/ Giao Chau natives? (And why it is also written Jiaozhi?)
    I unfortunately don't think there are any contemporary depictions of the Nanyue troops of Jiaozhou. There are some folk paintings of the Trung Sisters (a couple centuries earlier) and Lady Trieu, but all of them are modern era depictions, despite their attempts at authenticity. Everything else that I've seen is full of anachronism and stylistic nonsense.

    Of the surviving relics from the era that I've seen in Vietnam, almost all of them are weapons, and very few of them are armor (at least not the practical kind). This generally fits the theme that a lot of present day depictions go for, of lightly armored (leather, cloth, or rattan) troops using the terrain and local advantage to ward off the better equipped Han troops. Short swords, knives, and short spears are fairly common finds, with no examples of the long war pikes that characterized Han troops (they probably weren't of much use on the messy terrain). Plenty of regular arrowheads, though little to no crossbow bolt heads, despite the fact that we know that the Vietnamese had them. Elephants are a pretty prominent inclusion in the depictions, usually being ridden by the leader, though it's difficult to say if these were later additions. Cavalry is notably absent for the most part (though crops up in records from time to time), probably due to climate and terrain.

    It's worth noting that by the start of the game, the Viet people hadn't had a Viet ruler (aside from the brief interruption of the Trung Sisters) from for more than four centuries, and had been directly controlled by the Han empire for about three. Owning to their status as something of a backwater incredibly far from the capitol, they hadn't been integrated to nearly the extent of a lot of other "barbarian" peoples that the Han had control over. Still, any army from Jianzhou would likely have a decent amount of people trained and equipped in the Han style, even if they weren't culturally Han. Most of the troops would likely be non-Han styled auxiliaries though.

    If you want to see a mixture of Han Dynasty recreations, period art, and modern depictions, here's a good blog (note: not everything here is historically sound, but it's better than most):
    http://dragonsarmory.blogspot.com.au...asty-army.html
    Last edited by zoner16; March 28, 2018 at 11:48 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •